Follow the Leader

The competition between Ashton Kutcher and CNN to see who could reach 1 million followers on Twitter raises some interesting questions about social media. What stands out to me is what it says about the people using and engaging with different forms of social media online.

As a celebrity, Kutcher is actively engaging with a community of fans and others interested in his work, allowing him to give updates without the spin a media source might have on what he’s up to. On Twitter, he can speak for himself and clear up any misunderstandings without worrying so much about how it will be perceived by others.

It’s clear that taking a ‘celebrity’ like of the biggest critiques of the race to 1 million is that it comes off as egotistical at first glance, especially where Kutcher is concerned, as this analysis from Nieman Journalism Lab notes. But underneath the “let’s see if I can beat a well-known news network on Twitter” assumption is a means of raising money for malaria relief efforts and, at last update, it’s “close to $1 million”.

But more curious than how it works for Kutcher is why CNN engaged in this race. What was their purpose in trying to get to 1 million followers before him? Perhaps it was reflective of a struggle between “old media” and new, as Daniel Terdiman’s article on cnet news suggests. But does it really give any indication that television or film will give way to the web? While this is a new perspective on the situation, I’m not so convinced it represents the old vs. new media discourse. 

One angle barely touched on is what CNN’s participation implies from a journalistic perspective. Here is a news network prolific in reputation and close to omniscient in presence, effectively going up against a well-known celebrity. What would be the purpose of CNN getting to 1 million followers before Kutcher? What would they gain from that? How is it, in any sense, a journalistic act?

A news network that is perceived as competing with an individual, regardless of whether it was intended to be competition, highlights a change in the role of media organisations. Journalism is supposed to be a way of watching over the estates, a voice for the people, a way of transmitting information of public interest. Over time it seems as though changes in society have affected what is considered of “public interest” and how the journalism industry works.

Ratings, and sponsorship and various other factors now play a part in the media landscape which has, in turn, affected what news networks cover, how they cover it and how the public perceive it. There is a reason so many news websites now offer ‘comments’ and ‘opinion’ sections, and why they do so well. People want to express their opinions, but often they also want to criticise what a journalist has reported (or correct spelling and grammar, as the case may be). This relationship between journalism and the public hints at a mass cynicism towards the industry that was once partly a voice for the people.

The final question here is whether news networks actually consider every thing they do, whether they think about what will be in the public’s interest. Among other things, Twitter has given journalistic organisations like CNN an opportunity to hear from the people and improve based on that feedback. But are they actually considering their role as journalists when they seem to be playing in a popularity contest?

Why blog?

Antony Loewenstein's The Blogging Revolution

A few years back, around the beginning of 2006, I began reading blogs by friends and family as a way of keeping in touch with them. From there I realised how many people across the world are actually utilising this form of communication and expression. I began looking for blogs by people in the arts industry – namely film, television and theatre. When I started regularly reading Stargate:Atlantis executive producer Joseph Mallozzi’s blog in the first half of last year, I also found another purpose for blogging.

Joe not only writes about what’s going on for the show he executive produces and writes for, but also about the film and television industry, about writing for screen, about the crew and cast, and also about other things which interest him – books and food spring to mind. He does an almost-daily “mailbag” question and answer session, effectively cutting out the middleman (media) and giving his responses directly and eloquently. While a lot of the questions are about Stargate (I believe he’s worked on all the Stargate projects save the original movie), a lot are about his other interests and the industry he’s working in.

What struck me then (and still does) is the fact that blogging can put a personality to a name and face that people may know. It’s also a great way to give people answers to questions they may have that the mainstream media won’t ask. Science fiction is a good example of this lack of media attention because is general it is not deemed “mainstream entertainment” (and why is a whole new topic which I won’t go into here). Being able to read blogs by people directly involved in the film and television industry can provide information that the relevant media parties may miss or be unable to report on.

Before I move on, I’d like to mention Joe’s book club. Every month or so he picks, or asks readers to choose, three books people can read and then discuss. It started towards the end of last year and has been a great success. Joe’s even been able to get authors like Lou Anders (also a prolific scifi editor), Jeffrey Ford and K.J. Bishop to drop by and answer questions from him and the other readers about their relevant books. Each book is given a week’s worth of discussion before moving on to the next. In itself, I think this book club not only gives readers a chance to ask well-known authors about their work, but has also created a great community of intelligent, interested speculative fiction (scifi, fantasy, horror) readers. It seems blogging can be more interesting and useful than I first thought.

One of the main discourses on blogging that I’ve heard about recently is the apparent threat it might pose to mainstream forms of journalism. I’ve often seen it referred to as a form of “citizen journalism” or, as the ABC might say “a type of User Generated Content”. Axel Bruns, a “casual observer” of journalism, says in this article that traditional forms of journalism are being overtaken by new forms like news blogs and other websites offering “citizen journalism”. Bruns’ thoughts shed some light on the fear many media organisations have when it comes to the internet and blogging.

As I’ve said here and here, I don’t necessarily think traditional forms of media are necessarily threatened by blogging or at risk of being lost, however, blogging does need to be looked at more closely by the media.

A good place to start might be the recently published book by Australian journalist and author Antony Loewenstein, aptly titled The Blogging Revolution. Based on two years worth of travel and research, Loewenstein’s book investigates the democratising processes blogging can provide, especially for countries often viewed as politically repressed. Focusing on dissidents and bloggers in Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China, the book provides and in-depth look at how citizens, or perhaps more aptly “netizens” in these countries use blogging.

In his introduction to the book, Loewenstein expresses a frustration at the mainstream, Western media’s lack of interest in blogging as a way of providing voices for these countries. He writes that very few Western countries have had coverage of the Iraqi war without a “Western journalist’s filter”. It seems despite a journalistic obsession with balance, much of the Western media has not looked further than “official” statements, while blogs from citizens in these countries, experiencing these events first hand, lay forgotten in the online world.

His book highlights the importance of blogging for countries that don’t get a lot of Western media attention. It can be a way of showing the world what people experience, and how they feel about their countries. Western society may often make assumptions about countries seen as repressed or oppressed but, without hearing from people there, how do we really know? Loewenstein’s book provided insights and information into not only blogging, but also the way citizens in Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China feel about their countries and their leaders – what life is like living in these countries. It’s more than food for thought, The Blogging Revolution is essential reading for anyone interested in the opportunities the internet can provide and the state of the world today.

There may be no definite way to define the purpose of blogs, but it’s apparent they can be invaluable tools in providing insights, forums and context globally. Maybe that’s enough.

Aspiring Australian journalists – “do something new”

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Walkley Foundation held Brisbane’s Future of Journalism conference today, the second of the series which will be held in capital cities around Australia this year. I was on the second panel with two other final-year journalism students from Griffith University, Denis Semchenko and Tran Nguyen. Stateline’s John Taylor moderated our discussion about how we, as young people, consume news and how we see the future of journalism.

It’s an interesting topic and one that I looked at in my last post, but also something I could talk about for an indefinite amount of time. One of the things I brought up today was that I think it’s important for aspiring journalists to learn from journalists working today and those who have worked in the past. I was thinking about it because during my last internship I found all the journalists I worked with were really accommodating and understanding of the fact that I was a student trying to do my best and get a practical knowledge of the industry. I’m fairly conscious of taking up peoples time and it was encouraging to have journalists acknowledge that I was part of the future of journalism.

I felt it was important to tell journalists that I think their contribution to our learning is valued, so I brought it up today. I said “it’s important for us to learn from journalists working today so that we can develop the skills they value and use them as we move forward.” I’m quoting this particular sentiment because in a later panel about blogging, QUT Creative Industries lecturer and extensive blogger Axel Bruns seemed to misrepresent what I meant.

He said he disagreed because he thought it could limit innovation within journalism if we just kept learning the same skills set over and over without any change (I’m paraphrasing, so please correct me if I’ve got it wrong). While I believe innovation is important in all creative industries, I also think it’s hard to move forward without any foundations. There is quality journalism in this country, you need look no further than the Walkley Awards or the various state media awards for it, and I think that aspiring journalists need to acknowledge the legacy of these journalists by learning from them.

Of course we won’t be doing the exact same things, or at least not those of us that want to survive. In any creative industry you can’t really thrive unless you bring something new, something unique and appealing to the table. However, learning from those already in the industry is essential for true innovation to be achieved. How can you innovate if you don’t fully understand what innovation would be in your industry? How could that innovation be effective if you don’t have the basic skills accepted for that industry? Change is often a gradual process – it’s taken fifteen or so years for journalists to be fatalistically concerned about the internet – and while innovation is important, I don’t think you can have it without a sound understanding of what you’re innovating.

I also found it a bit interesting, coming from someone working in an academic industry. I know enough about academia to see that a lot of it is referring to people who have come before you so that you can support your own views. I think that’s important, and it seems most academics do too, so why then was the logic missed today?

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the fact I mentioned learning so that we can move into the future was left out. I’m assuming it was a simple mistake (easily made by all of us) but it was frustrating to have someone refer to something I’d said out of it’s original context especially when I couldn’t respond. So out with the old soapbox to ensure I have my say, defend my thoughts and elaborate in case anyone who misinterpreted it comes by.

Journalism in Australia – young people and the future

In this day and age it’s hard not to engage with journalism on some level. It’s in news agencies, on TV, radio and the internet, and with the development of globalisation it’s becoming even more important to engage with journalism on some level. So what is journalism like at the moment, and how could it change in the near future in Australia?

The answer’s not simple, and in an (arguably) postmodern world, everyone’s perception of the media is different. But there are certain views emerging which I feel the need to comment on. As someone who has both learnt about and practised journalism, it’s important to engage in the current perspectives on this industry, and to develop theories relevant to the individual’s experiences. Some of the views being thrown around at the moment seem to me particularly cynical.

One view which springs to mind is that young people are engaging with journalism more and more through new media, and ignoring the traditional formats. As a young person, I regularly go to networking sites like Myspace, online news providers like Google News (Australia), ABC Online, BBC Online and LiveNews.com.au. However, I also listen to ABC News Radio and ABC Radio National, watch ABC and Seven News regularly, as well as the occasional current affairs show, and read The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, local community-based newspapers and, sometimes, The Courier Mail. I admit it’s a lot of news, and not every young person may engage with the media as much, but the idea of young people accessing news from predominantly online sources seems ridiculous to me.

The internet is some fifteen years older, younger than the “young people” I am guessing these assumptions are aimed at, and as such it is still a relatively new platform for journalism. When something is new there tends to be more room for errors, exploration and trial-and-error processes. Some news websites have enabled user-generated content (UGC) by encouraging their audience to submit story ideas and media like photographs, audio or video and allowing comments on the content of the site. Some do so more than others, but in general UGC makes online journalism more involving for the public. Young people seem to enjoy being involved in the experience, so I assume that’s where this view stems from.

Having said that, a lot of the sites I visit have comments clearly left by people older than these “young people” talked about. The internet is a non-discriminatory format anyone can engage with, and to make the generalisation that young people get most of their news and information online is limiting how young people are perceived.

Most of the young people I know believe credible journalism is predominant in traditional forms of news like newspapers, radio and television. Online journalism has the potential to combine elements from all three of these forms, but it doesn’t seem to be quite there yet (at least not in a broad sense). It’s fast developing, but that doesn’t mean the other forms will die out just yet.

I was watching the ABC show Q&A (episode 15) last week, and heard the federal Minister for Small Business Craig Emerson voice an opinion of current media forms and new media forms which is similar to what I believe.

“Don’t write off the traditional media,” he says, “People were writing off newspapers a decade ago and newspapers are still, notwithstanding these current problems, are still going pretty strongly. I think it’s just a changing world.” (Craig Emerson, Q&A, Episode 15, 28/08/08, ABC1)

It is a changing world, but I think there’s a place in it for all forms of media. I find, in particular, the idea that newspapers are a dying breed, to be cynical and narrow-minded in substance. It may seem that way at first glance, with most major newspapers in Australia getting lower circulation numbers than in the past, but to say newspapers will die out is not seeing the rest of the picture. People still buy newspapers. Why, if the internet has the same articles for free? Or if the TV and radio news get stories before papers go to print?

I think it’s because of the experience. Reading a newspaper is different to reading news online, or seeing or hearing it. I don’t buy papers every day, but I make a point of buying at least one on the weekend, and usually two or three during the week. I like reading newspapers because they seem to have a depth to them that other forms of journalism don’t.

On the other hand, I like listening to radio news because of the immediacy of it, because it’s current and relevant and engaging in a way reading isn’t. Television is different again, with sound and images as well as a script, and I like to watch the news to see how things have happened. Online can be all three, and that makes it amazingly versatile. But there are aspects of each form which can’t are mutually exclusive to other forms, which means all sources of journalism will probably be around so long as the experience is enjoyed.

There’s also other benefits I can see from having different sources of journalism. In Australia, the media ownership is concentrated between a few organisations, which many believe has led to a lack of diversity of opinion in the media. I would argue that the diversity of formats for journalism means there is diversity in the opinions presented. News providers may be owned by one overarching organisation, but the people involved in online will be different to the people involved in television or print or radio, which means the news will differ between formats regardless of ownership. It may not be ideal, but it is at least providing some diversity.

While the future of journalism may be indeterminate, intangible or indefinable, I think we can all too easily assume one outcome without looking at other possibilities. Our own judgements define what we see as the future, but it’s important to look at other opinions and keep an open mind. Without that, what else is there?

The Common Perception of the Australian Media

Is your news limited?

For years I’ve been dissatisfied with the media in Australia. Journalists seem to come across as sneaky, snide, sleazy, arrogant, unethical and unconcerned individuals which add up to the sum of media in this country. But are they like that?

Since this year (I suppose) I have been wondering whether the media really is as bad as we all seem to think it is. And this train of thought is fuelled largely by my study, but also by my increased interest in current affairs and news and satire like The Chaser and Frontline. I was having a discussion with my brother a few days ago about whether the Australian media help to enforce ideas of democracy. And he was saying that he believed the media is not doing that job in the slightest and is more hinderance than helper.

I used to agree with that sentiment, almost without question, but the cynical (journalistic) side of me questions everything. And really, are the media such a bad element? Should we distrust them, make them the butt of our jokes, treat the phrase “ethical journalism” as an oxymoron of old? What is it about the media that causes regard somewhat lesser than that you might have for mould in the shower?

Most of the journalists in this country are good journalists. They are ethical and they do their job not for glory, but out of an intrinsic human interest (and probably an ingrained duty some of the more weathered journo’s feel). Think about journalists like Kerry O’Brien, Sandra Sully (yes, she annoys me, but she’s pretty good really), George Negus, Indira Naidoo, David Marr, Michael Idato, Hedley Thomas (who exposed Dr Death and the mistreatment of Haneef). If you know any one of those names, think of whether they fit in with your perceptions of the media. I don’t think they would for my brother, but they are good, prominent journalists. And the majority of journalists in this country are just as good.

But if we have so many “good journalists”, why does the media seem like it’s doing nothing helpful? Therein lies the problem.

I think it has to do with the concentration of media ownership, firstly. Of course, I love Fairfax and News Limited, but with only TWO primary owners of media in this country, there’s very little competition. Think of a job you would like. And imagine you are in a position where you could be promoted for doing better than your colleagues. Ok, now imagine there are very few colleagues at a level above you as most are on the same level as you. That’s what I think we have with the media here. What’s the point in trying to get to the top when most people are level with you and going higher could expose you to a lot of nasty treatment?

There’s more legislative influences, but that is a big one, and I don’t want to harp on for much longer.

The other element is what makes up the definition of media. It includes news, current affairs, features (in magazines etc), documentary shows like Australian Story and celebrity gossip that you often see in magazines. Are you seeing the contrasts?

I’ll probably write a lot more political stuff over the next few days, leading up to and following the election.

Next time: Tune in for the best way to ask questions as a journalist, and the different techniques you can use. Baffle your friends with your investigative, persistant skills and stun politicians with your mastery of questioning.

But for now, I wonder if you might think about how The Chaser’s War on Everything only ever satirises a couple of sections of the media. If all of “the media” was the way lots of people think of the media, wouldn’t they satirise more than the usual suspects?

The Media and the Writers

Paige Smith* is a journalist who works in Australia. Where she works doesn’t really matter, because she knows who her real bosses are (“their are only two of them”, she says in her professional, trained newsreaderspeak). She likes the current political system and what it does (to) for the fourth estate. “The anti-terror legislation is good for journalists…and we know we don’t have to concern ourselfs with Freedom of Information requests because what we get back is generally similar to what we start with – a blank page,” she reports.

I could go on about Paige, she’s certainly an interesting character with her strong support of the current system (the ‘fourth estate’ didn’t get it’s name from agreeing with governments, I promise), but the crux of the matter is safety, which these days often gets overlooked outside of an individual’s own safety. Paige is looking out for Number One, but in theory is that what the law should be doing? If you follow the code of ethics, set out by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, if you stand by those twelve short points, you should be a decent journalist. But under the current laws, following at least one of these principals (“Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.”) can get you put in (contempt) gaol. Is that fair? Is that allowing journalists to do their jobs properly? With the threat of personal safety so close to journalists, it’s no wonder Paige Smith feels the way she does.

In other news and on a completely unrelated train of thought, I am still thinking of all the Writers Guild of America members who are on strike. It seems as though (especially in film) producers and directors and actors get the most respect from the general (not that word) public. I can understand their cause, and I make a point of appreciating the writers of both films and television shows I enjoy (more so with tv shows as you’re more likely to become familiar with a writer). I hope it ends soon though, for the sake of the writers and all the other skilled professionals like costume designers who are currently out of work.

At least we can write about it for them.

*Paige Smith is a character created for the forum theatre satire show, John Howard on Trial